Does this look right?

[Ichthus77 (Ichthus77 (formerly She™))]

ethical import (existence)
essential import (essence)
existential import (being)

more: ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.p … 8#p2924838

[Ichthus77 (Ichthus77 (formerly She™))]

¿Would this be better:

ethico-existential import (existence)
essential import (essence)
ontological import (being)

?

[Dan1 (Dan~)]

I’m not that impressed.

[Ichthus77 (Ichthus77 (formerly She™))]

What impresses you?

[Ichthus77 (Ichthus77 (formerly She™))]

The difference between honesty (essential import) and truth (existential or ontological import) is that sometimes you can feel you’re being honest, but in fact you were mistaken, so what you were honest about is not actually the truth.

[Ichthus77 (Ichthus77 (formerly She™))]

¿how bout dis?

ethico-existential import
hypo-/hyper-thetico-essential import
ontologico-material import

[Ichthus77 (Ichthus77 (formerly She™))]

stuff: ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.p … 4#p2925624

[Ichthus77 (Ichthus77 (formerly She™))]

@Ichthus77

The difference between honesty (essential import) and truth (existential or ontological import) is that sometimes you can feel you’re being honest, but in fact you were mistaken, so what you were honest about is not actually the truth.

Correction. That isn’t essential import. That is ethico–existential import. (Blue.)

[Ichthus77 (Ichthus77 (formerly She™))]

[Ichthus77 (Ichthus77 (formerly She™))]

Relevant. Click the down arrow to get to the conversation with Copilot:

Modal Logic Question

Imagine if you didn’t need to do trial and error because you imagined things right/beautiful/necessary (& thus possible) the first/meta time? Anywhayz. I just had a glorious chat with Bing Copilot about Kant’s ought implies can (the crux of graded absolutism) and Hare’s ought implies imperative (the crux of Kierkegaard’s Subjectivity is Truth)… Some scribblies: [image]